On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:27:07 -0400 Andrew Ngo <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 September 2012 03:17, YASUOKA Masahiko > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:41:52 -0400 >> Andrew Ngo <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: >>> (By the way, the daemon goes absolutely bananas if you use a >>> "framed-ip-address" on a different subnet than those in the pool. >>> Bananas! I don't recommend this error. ^^) >> >> npppd will assign ip address dynamically on that case. >> Can you explain your recommendation? > > I only managed to replicate the error using "pool-address [ip4] [ip4] for > static" in the pre-patched npppd, so it's probably a result of the same > bug. (When I said "bananas", I was just talking about the deluge of > "unhandled option" messages. :) Anyway, I've attached the output -- it > looks like a consequence of npppd thinking it has no addresses to allocate.
I see, > 10:15:34:NOTICE: ppp id=0 layer=base No free address in the pool. > 10:15:34:NOTICE: ppp id=0 layer=base No free address in the pool. > 10:15:35:INFO: ppp id=0 layer=base unhandled protocol ipv6cp, 32855(8057) > 10:15:35:INFO: ppp id=0 layer=ccp CCP is stopped > 10:15:35:DEBUG: ppp id=0 layer=ipcp Unhandled Option 01 10 > 10:15:36:DEBUG: ppp id=0 layer=ipcp Unhandled Option 01 10 Because npppd could not allocate any ip address, iOS fallbacked to use old options of IPCP. The messages are to complain for the old options. Thank you for your report. --yasuoka
